In 2018, our client filed a lawsuit against the school district, alleging that the district failed to promote her to a high school principal position because of racial discrimination. 

In July 2020, the district installed a new Superintendent. The lawsuit alleges that the Superintendent requested a list of individuals who had sued CPSD and stated that he wanted to “get rid of” those individuals. 

Between 2021 and 2024, the lawsuit contains allegations that Defendant’s senior administrators repeatedly harassed and targeted our client because of her race and her prior protected activity. The lawsuit alleges that our client was told by CPSD senior administrators that she was considered “an angry Black woman” and that CPSD made baseless accusations of policy violations against our client. 

According to the lawsuit, CPSD did not treat similarly situated non-Black employees and/or employees who had not engaged in protected activity in this manner. 

The lawsuit states that in Spring 2024, our client started planning the middle school’s annual Back-to-School Bash, a community engagement event that she had organized and led for approximately eight years. 

By March 2024, our client had scheduled the Bash for Friday, August 16, 2024, reserved the venue, notified partner organizations, and informed CPSD of the date. Our client was the primary organizer and oversaw all event operations. 

On May 26, 2024, our client learned that CPSD’s superintendent scheduled the back-to-school Convocation to occur at the same date and time as the Bash. According to the lawsuit, the Convocation had never been held on a Friday afternoon, and when she learned of the conflict, our client immediately notified her supervisor and another senior administrative staff at CPSD. The lawsuit states that both were aware that our client’s attendance at the Bash was essential and did not inform our client at that time that she would be required to attend the Convocation instead. 

The lawsuit alleges that on August 7, 2024, the day after our client sent out the invitation for Bash to West Middle School Families, a senior administrative leader informed our client for the first time that she would be disciplined if she did not attend the Convocation. 

According to the lawsuit, CPSD refused to process our client’s request for time off so she could attend the Bash. Our client then attended the Bash rather than the Convocation.

The lawsuit states that on or about August 23, 2024, CPSD suspended our client and placed her on administrative leave, pending investigation, claiming our client violated District policy by failing to attend the Convocation and engaging in other misconduct. 

According to the lawsuit, other employees who were non-Black and/or had not engaged in protected activity also failed to attend the Convocation but were not suspended or disciplined. 

The lawsuit states that on or about November 12, 2024, Defendant informed our client that she would not be permitted to return to work and that her contract as Principal of West Middle School would not be renewed. Our client remained on administrative leave for the remainder of the 2024–2025 school year. On or about June 30, 2025, CPSD terminated our client’s employment. 

This case is ongoing. For more information, contact attorney Nicole Matlock at nmatlock@kennedyhuntlaw.com. If you or someone you know has been discriminated against, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Kennedy Hunt P.C. Files Complaint Against Columbia Public School District appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

The case was recently featured on St. Louis Public Radio.

The lawsuit alleges the school district violated Missouri common law and the Missouri Whistleblower’s Protection Act when it wrongly terminated our client’s contract. The complaint also alleges that a former vice president of the St. Louis Schools Board of Education defamed our client. 

According to the lawsuit, our client was placed on administrative leave on July 25, 2024, in violation of the terms of her contract, after she had uncovered long-standing failures within the district that had gone unaddressed for years, including her claim that the district owed almost $5 million in unpaid invoices. 

The lawsuit alleges that after our client reported this to the Board of Education, the district then wrongly placed her on administrative leave in violation of the terms of her contract and without providing her any explanation. 

The lawsuit also claims that during our client’s improper administrative leave, the school district terminated seven senior members of the school district administration with no notice.

The lawsuit goes on to state: 

“Defendant SLPS’s action in terminating members of Plaintiff Scarlett’s administration was intended to signal to potential witnesses that anyone supporting Plaintiff Scarlett could lose their job.”

According to the lawsuit, a former vice president for the SLPS Board of Education defamed our client by alleged she set salaries for administration employees at higher rates than she should have and without consulting the BOE. 

The lawsuit states:  

“Plaintiff Scarlett had numerous communications with the Board regarding salaries for the school administration during her employment and kept them informed of each action she took related to setting any salaries.”

On September 24, 2024, the district notified our client that it intended to terminate her employment “for cause”.

The lawsuit states that a hearing was then scheduled for October 14, 2024. But, according to the lawsuit, our client was also barred from accessing any of her school-issued devices or entering any school district buildings once she was placed on leave, thus making it impossible for her to access documents necessary to defend herself against accusations in the hearing.

That same day, the school district notified our client that her employment was terminated. The lawsuit alleges the district failed to properly terminate her under any clause of her contract. 

The lawsuit seeks judgment for lost wages and benefits, diminished current and future earning capacity, reputational damage, emotional distress, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any such other relief this Court deems may be just and proper.

This case is ongoing. 

You can read the lawsuit here.

For more information, contact attorney Nicole Matlock at nmatlock@kennedyhuntlaw.com. If you or someone you know has had their employment rights violated, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Kennedy Hunt P.C. Files Employment Lawsuit Against St. Louis Public School District appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

The change means that landlords can use applicants’ lawful sources of income, including Section 8, veterans’ benefits, and Social Security, in determining whether to rent to them. The law is likely to hurt affordable housing efforts across Missouri. Section 8 housing vouchers help low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities afford housing in the private market. 

The attorneys at Kennedy Hunt P.C. are experts in fair housing laws. We exclusively represent clients in their fights against housing discrimination in Missouri and Illinois and have landed many large settlements. If you or someone you know has had their housing rights violated, the skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Missouri Governor Signs New Law Allowing Landlords to Discriminate Against Section 8 Renters appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

The White House had previously threatened to withhold billions of dollars in funding for education in states that refused to sign a pledge to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in their schools or colleges. 

In August, Judge Stephanie Gallagher of the Federal District Court in Maryland halted the White House’s efforts, writing in a ruling that the administration had “initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished.”

At the time, the government appealed the judge’s decision. But now, the White House has withdrawn its case.

The president of the American Federation of Teachers wrote in a statement, “In this case, with the stroke of a pen, the administration tried to take a hatchet to 60 years of civil rights laws that were meant to create educational opportunity for all kids. They attempted to rewrite and redefine opportunity to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion, and threatened schools and districts with penalties if they failed to comply.” 

This one victory for civil rights protections in schools and colleges comes as the Trump administration is also pursuing many other avenues to upend diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Many of those efforts are being challenged in courts across the country. 

The attorneys at Kennedy Hunt PC are champions for students and experts in education law. 

You can read a select number of education law cases we take on here. If your education rights have been violated, we can help. Please complete a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Trump Administration Drops Lawsuit to Restrict DEI in Schools and Colleges appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

According to the lawsuit, our client’s mother enrolled her daughter in the McLean County Unit School District in January 2024. She alleges that she worked with the school district to ensure the school would be a supportive environment for her transgender child. 

The lawsuit states that in January 2024, our client formally signed a document to amend her gender identity, name, and pronouns at a meeting with the school district. According to the lawsuit, the school district assured our client that her gender marker, name, and pronouns would be updated across all district records before her first day of school. 

The next day, according to the lawsuit, our client went to her first day of school and found that her gender marker, name, and pronouns were not updated across all district records as promised. The lawsuit claims that the school district assigned our client a student e-mail address that included her former name (“dead name”).

The lawsuit also alleges that on her first day: 

[Our client’s] teacher asked [her] for her e-mail address so he could add her to his Google Classroom. [Our client], though embarrassed, provided her school-issued e-mail address. [Our client’s] teacher then asked [our client], “Who is [dead name]?” in front of the class. Before class ended, one student told another, “Watch me bully them until they transfer.” After being dead-named in the presence of other students, [Our client’s] classmates started harassing her because of her sex and gender identity. The bullying included verbal harassment, derogatory comments about her gender identity, deliberate misgendering, social exclusion, and threats of physical harm.

According to the lawsuit, although the school district assured our client that her previous gender information would stay private, our client’s teachers repeatedly questioned her and other District staff about our client’s gender identity. 

The lawsuit alleges that our client’s mother then complained to the school district’s Director of Equity and Inclusion about the bullying, threats, and dead-naming incident. The director told our client’s mother that she’d “look into it.” Our client’s mother was allegedly later told by school district leaders, “Middle school girls are mean.” 

Our client’s mother then allegedly learned about a TikTok account in which her daughter’s classmates allegedly used the account to threaten and bully her. The lawsuit states that our client’s mother emailed the school district a screenshot of the TikTok account, but the district allegedly did not take any meaningful action. 

According to the lawsuit, our client’s mother repeatedly told the school district about instances in which our client’s classmates threatened our client. Our client’s mother and her partner then told the school district that our client was afraid to leave her home, ride the school bus, or attend school due to the escalating harassment. But, according to the lawsuit, the district did not take any meaningful action. 

The lawsuit continues:

On March 7, 2024, [our client] was attacked at school by another student (“Student R”). Student R approached [our client] from behind, pulled her hair, and forcefully and repeatedly slammed her head to the ground until [she] lost consciousness. Student R then punched [our client] in the face until someone pulled her off. After this attack, no one, including [school district’s] teachers or staff, helped [our client] or inquired about her well-being. Later, after [our client] began to have trouble seeing, she went to the nurse’s office, where the nurse and [the school’s principal] called [our client’s mother] and informed her that [our client] had been involved in “a fight” and had “hit” her head. [Our client’s mother] did not understand that [our client] had been attacked, rather than involved in a mutual fight, and that [our client’s] head had been forcibly slammed into the ground, rather than merely “hit” – until she requested and reviewed the video footage of the incident.

According to the lawsuit, our client was later diagnosed with a concussion, a potential traumatic brain injury (TBI), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The lawsuit alleges the trauma has left our client feeling unsafe, severely disrupting her education and overall well-being. 

The lawsuit states that she left traditional school and enrolled in homebound services from April 2024 to October 2025. 

According to the lawsuit:

Prior to the attack and harassment, [our client] had been enrolled in gifted programming since kindergarten and consistently tested in the top one percent of students nationally for her age. As a result of the concussion, potential traumatic brain injury, and PTSD caused by [the school district’s] conduct, [our client] now struggles with academic tasks that were previously well within her abilities. 

The lawsuit alleges that our client has suffered economic damage, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, and impairment of her quality of life. According to the lawsuit, the school district’s actions and failures to act show a deliberate indifference and/or malice toward our client’s rights.

This case is ongoing. 

For more information, contact attorney Sarah Jane Hunt at sarahjane@kennedyhuntlaw.com. If you or someone you know has been a victim of discrimination, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Kennedy Hunt P.C. Files Discrimination Complaint against McLean County Unit No. 5 School District Board of Education appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..